I'm a Toronto native. These are the forces driving this decision:
1. Provincial government is cash poor. The LCBO is a huge source of cash, what government would give up another source? This isn't taxes, this is profit. "Isn't this just another tax?" One might ask, but no it's not. The reason is that Ontario has fewer alcohol distribution centres than a free market would provide. Most people just do a bigger alcohol run and drive / walk / drive further than their American counterparts. There's queuing occasionally, but usually only before long weekends or holidays.
2. The current dispensaries are run by criminals. The optics of giving a windfall to law breakers aren't great. The police keep shutting them down, and they keep popping up. I'm not bashing them, I think cannabis should have been legalized a long time ago and I think it's unconscionable that we have Canadians addicted to heroin because they were given opioids instead of pot, because pot requires a huge hassle to get approved, and I think dispensaries alleviate that stress, but some operations are huuuuge and most certainly are funnelling money into real criminal organizations.
3. The union at the LCBO is huge and powerful. The jobs, even seasonal ones, pay well and Ontarians aren't outraged because the staff is generally competent and friendly and the stores are clean.
4. Controls over potency are a real problem in the current dispensaries and because of the sketchiness of the current people involved and their distribution networks, the government would have to get involved auditing anyway.
I hope that they keep the stores open every day of the week. Many Canadians use pot outside the medical system, but for medical reasons and fast access will mean the black market will finally collapse. I also hope there will be a system for legitimizing certain strains that gain popularity in the US, like the LCBO does for wine.
More spendthrift than cash poor. The province has more than enough revenue but cannot control its spending.
>The current dispensaries are run by criminals.
By definition. Just like bootleg operations during prohibition were all run by criminals. Legalization would remove this feature of the system.
>Controls over potency are a real problem in the current dispensaries and because of the sketchiness of the current people involved and their distribution networks, the government would have to get involved auditing anyway.
Again. This is where Health Canada and the Ontario government can step in and regulate standards. They do that with alcohol (hard to find anything over 40%). If there are unsafe levels of potency, regulate the potency. Government does that with everything else in the market. Pretty much every food item at a grocery store is regulated in some way. My father works at a supplier of frozen food to some of the biggest conglomerates. There are insane amount of regulations related to food safety because if you get sloppy, a Listeria contamination of a TV dinner could kill hundreds of people. And yes, they clean constantly, they have to maintain proper records and have to have an on-site lab that tests samples 3 or 4 times a day - and yes, they get audited.
> The union at the LCBO is huge and powerful. The jobs, even seasonal ones, pay well [...]
And oddly enough I'm perfectly happy with that. Ontario's strategy with booze is responsible consumption (or whatever it's called)... essentially price it sufficiently high that we don't get too many drunks on the street.
Given how badly alcohol abuse can mess up lives (not just the abuser but their family and friends too, not to mention random folk who they cross paths with) I think this is a sensible strategy.
As part of that strategy I don't think trying to have to the cheapest labour costs is that important. It won't change the end price of booze, it will only ensure that the jobs won't be staffed by long term employees (and hence knowledgeable employees, and employees that can save for retirement, etc).
> Ontario's strategy with booze is responsible consumption (or whatever it's called)... essentially price it sufficiently high that we don't get too many drunks on the street.
Sin taxes are actually composed of two distinct effects: the effect of increasing price and therefore reducing negative externalities like you mentioned. In addition, a well structured sin tax should use it's gross profit to fund support services like rehabilitation and health services.
LCBO only does 1 of those things well. LCBO marks up their product by a percentage, which impacts premium products more than lower priced products[0]. If LCBO was committed to decreasing consumption of alcohol, it would apply a flat fee to each unit of alcohol, which would maximize utility and minimize the impact to the rest of the alcohol industry.
And then again countries like Australia have this problem and some very strict laws.
I think the reality is that this is way more about national identity than it is the laws. As we have seen with legalization in Canada, the laws don't mean much anyway.
I haven't heard of one case of a dispensary being run by organized crime since they started randomly shutting them down. People automatically assume these are run by biker gangs but the truth is these are small businesses with some chains moving over from BC.
This was a bad decision by a government who is on the way out.
All this does is ensure the blackmarket keeps going strong.
Dispensary operators are not criminals because of gang ties (it's not illegal just to be a member of the HA for example), they're criminals because they contravene the criminal code by operating.
It is important that the LCBO not be the only source. It needs to be opened up from the get-go and not have to follow the mini-step half measures that we have to go through to get alcohol in grocery stores. The sourcing of alcohol is still controlled by the province. It is a govt sponsored racket and monopoly.
Okay, so what? What do we gain from letting Shoppers Drug Mart and Rexall sell pot? The aim here is to provide regulated access, with prices that are low enough to eliminate the black market, but high enough to encourage people to think twice about it.
The LCBO has been playing this role pretty well and the profits go towards quality jobs and government investments for the public good. I struggle to see the societal benefit from gifting the profits to established corportations, providing more product than is necessary (or at a lower price), and letting private businesses make the right choice between effective regulation and more sales.
> The LCBO is a huge source of cash, what government would give up another source
The government long ago allowed "The Beer Store", a private non-Canadian company to be part of the alcohol monopoly. It's only coming to an end now that some grocery stores are allowed to sell beer.
Come to think of it, since my local Loblaws got beer and wine, I have never set foot inside an LCBO and doubt I'll ever need to again.
It's quite common. Some governments, like some people, would rather not appear to be insolvent.
In Chinese history, there was a time when the government declared a simultaneous tax increase and tax reform because taxes (in grain) often didn't even arrive at the capital. The reform turned out to be so successful that the increase was canceled.
This isn't going to produce more net government revenues, it's going to produce more government employees beholden to the current regime. They could net more to spend on other government needs simply by taxing and regulating, with the same set of regulations.
I think they are really blowing it by making the stores government owned.
In Colorado, the stores are privately owned but very, very strictly regulated. Plants are tracked with an RFID all the way to the products derived from them, with a full chain of custody all the way to purchase.
Only adults 21 and up can enter them, with a strict dual-check of identification (once to enter, and again when paying the cashier).
The various shops actually end up being very different from each other in surprising ways. They all adhere to the regulations, but some are much larger and more corporate feeling, with lower prices, while others are boutique, specialize in higher quality product, and priced higher.
The pace with which new products can be introduced is much faster due to potential producers not having to negotiate with a giant bureaucracy to get a product on the shelves.
You're making a lot of assumptions about how they will run the stores.
Other people have already mentioned how the government runs the alcohol stores and (IMHO) they do a pretty good job of it. I live in Texas now and when I go back to Ontario to visit my family, it does seem weird that I can't buy beer in a 7-11 or a grocery store or in a drive through shop (not sure these are a good idea).
Being the sole seller also means that they can negotiate ruthlessly and drive prices down to maximize profit for the people of Ontario. I don't know if they will do that, but it sure helps.
As someone who lives in a state with state-run liquor, this is the exact opposite of how it actually plays out. Prices are anywhere from 30-100+% more than across the border in a state without a state-run liquor policy. Because the government has a monopoly there is no competition to drive prices lower and since the government monopoly gets to keep the profit there is no incentive for them to lower prices. Furthermore, a big part of the reason that liquor is state-run where it is, with few, scattered stores that close at 7:00 PM and on Sunday and holidays, is to encourage reduced alcohol consumption. Raising prices is an effective mechanism for that too.
I think if you set up these kind of government-run dispensaries, you have to mandate that their purpose is ensuring product and supply chain quality (not just making fat bags of cash), and that revenue above COGS has to be restricted to what it costs to run the program and maybe a small emergency/maintenance fund. Otherwise the natural incentive that apply to any monopoly encourage them to raise prices to the max the market will bear and rent-seek. It's civically conscientious to think that the government would be advocating for the people by working to proved the lowest possible prices, but that isn't how any government-run 'vices' dispensary program I've ever seen plays out IRL.
I think costing more and making the government more money are intended features of this system, not side-effects.
'vice' dispensaries are not meant to provide the best service to their customers. They are meant to fill a need well enough to prevent black market competitors, while at the same time making the vice inconvenient enough to discourage its use as much as possible. At the same time, they want to maximize revenue for the government.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate, but it isn't something they are accidentally doing. When it comes to vices like alcohol or drugs, 'advocating for the people' is not a simple 'provide people what they want' equation - people are wanting something that is bad for them, so do we give it to them as cheaply as possible, satisfying their want, or do we make it more difficult, to satisfy what society wants as a whole?
Simpler in terms of not handling retail operations directly. More complicated as now you have to employ an army of regulators to make sure the regulations aren't being skirted in favor of higher sales numbers.
> advocating for the people by working to proved the lowest possible prices
Lowest possible prices for the government purchasers, not for the citizens. For alcohol at least, there are a lot of externalities associated with consumption and so it makes sense for the government to try to price the product with that in mind. In a place like Ontario where the government also runs the health care system, it makes even more sense.
>Other people have already mentioned how the government runs the alcohol stores and (IMHO) they do a pretty good job of it.
No. They don't. I was recently at an Ontario beach on a long weekend - all the stores on the strip leading up to the beach were open because of the tourists and cottagers flocking into the area...except for the LCBO. The LCBO was closed because it was a stat holiday. No business would close on their biggest sales day of the year. Try buying alcohol on New Years Eve and see the insane lineup because they close early New Years Eve and are closed completely on New Years Day. Or try grabbing a bottle of liquor on your way to your buddies house for dinner in the evening on a Sunday.
Those stores don't need to exist. It is so stupid, it's beyond reason. The liquor is marked-up and expensive too.
Aside from the hours of operation which really has nothing to do with the LCBO (complain to your MLA), yes they do. They are well stocked, very clean, their employees are trained and treated maybe too well, they run tasting bars and even offer loyalty points.
As for the price, "wines and spirits sold in Canada is subject to the Excise Act, 2001,[36] which contributes greatly to the cost of beverage alcohol, although most liquor tax is provincial."
On non-holiday weekends, the stores are open Sunday. If you aren't happy about the stores closing for holiday weekends, blame the union. That's something they protect for their members.
> The liquor is marked-up and expensive too.
That's just taxes. Anybody else selling alcohol would have to add their profit on top of that. It might seem expensive, but don't forget that you are helping to pay for government provided services.
They are open for only a few hours on Sunday. Blame the union? Lets not shift the debate. The government could open later and longer and unions could not stop them.
>If you aren't happy about the stores closing for holiday weekends, blame the union. That's something they protect for their members.
What are you talking about? Unions don't care about stat holidays. They care about making sure their members are paid. Plenty of people would work over a long weekend for 1.5x or 2x wage. To me seeing the LCBO closed while every other place on that strip was open and full of shopping tourists means the LCBO is completely immune to market forces. They just don't care.
Hmmmmm. If only there was a way for stores to not all be owned by a single entity that is forced to have all of their employees be part of a union. We could call it privatization.
> they can negotiate ruthlessly and drive prices down to maximize profit for the people of Ontario
They do. However there's an odd situation that has arisen at least once. The underlying strategy of the gov't is one of social responsibility... essentially not pricing booze cheap enough that you end up with a lot of public drunkenness. This means that the gov't sets a minimum retail price and the LCBO ensures they don't sell below that. The gov't also sets a maximum retail markup (which is odd, one can only assume that at some point this was an olive branch to folks upset about how expensive booze is... sort of a 'we will not charge more than x% markup' promise implemented as regulation/legislation).
Faced with a minimum retail price and a maximum markup the LCBO had to ask a wine seller to raise their prices because even after applying the maximum markup the retail price was below the minimum. Sounds crazy for cheap plonk... but that's exactly what what they're trying to avoid... winos drunk on the street from cheap Thunderbird.
Note I think this only happened the once. It made the news at the time... but I haven't heard of it happening again.
> Being the sole seller also means that they can negotiate ruthlessly and drive prices down to maximize profit for the people of Ontario.
Being the sole seller also means they have a monopoly. It's much easier to run a monopoly profitably by charging high prices than by negotiating low prices. Even if they do negotiate low prices, what incentive is there to pass the savings on to the customer?
> what incentive is there to pass the savings on to the customer?
I mentioned this in another comment, but for alcohol there are a lot of external costs associated with consumption. It makes sense to try include some of those costs.
You can tell yourself that, but the purpose of LCBO at this stage is the money it makes for government. Liquor prohibition is a distant memory. If you don't realize that, you risk buying into their rhetoric about "protecting children" that they're peddling for weed monopolies.
One aspect no one seems to mention is just how absolutely terrible the selection is at the LCBO. They want consistency at every location, so if you're looking for small-batch or a wine that isn't grossly mass-produced, you have no choice at all. It basically means that unless you have a small producer locally, you only have access to huge corporate producers. It is hugely boring compared to the scene I see in most of the US.
Personally, I make a point of maxing out my alcohol import limits every time I come back.
Yep. This is what's so depressing about the cannabis stores in Ontario being state run. I LOVE the fact that depending on the store in Colorado I'm in, there will be completely different strains from different producers present. They are all subject to strict and rigorous testing mandated by Colorado's government, so you get the best of both worlds.
The real shame is that this is going to encourage a few large, well-connected producers to seize the market. As in all things regulated, the people who stand to benefit the most from influencing the agency in charge of Ontario's cannabis will be these same producers. I hope I'm wrong.
The LCBO doesn't negotiate. The vendors set their price, LCBO adds its automatic markup and thats it. Of course, they will only stock your product if people are buying it.
The USA isn't a monolith. Walking into a 7-11 and seeing alcohol and cigarettes everywhere is dependent upon the state you are in.
In Colorado, the only alcohol that can be purchased outside of a regulated liquor store is "Mormon" beer. This is beer whose alcohol content is less than 4%.
In Virginia, liquor can only be purchased at stores run by the state government. Same goes for North Carolina and several other states.
My experience with private liquor stores vs. the state run ones has been that the private ones were better stocked, had significantly better variety, and lower prices. However, that can vary depending on the state.
> My experience with private liquor stores vs. the state run ones has been that the private ones were better stocked, had significantly better variety, and lower prices. However, that can vary depending on the state.
But that is often a direct side effect of the purpose of government alcohol monopolies, which is rarely to sell the most alcohol possible, but to provide a sufficient outlet to minimise black market sales yet seek to at least to some extent shape and reduce consumption.
So this is what one should expect with them. Whether or not that's what one wants is a separate issue.
The last time I was in Ontario, the grocery store did have a beer and wine section, but it wasn't part of the store. It was basically a separate store within the store.
>Being the sole seller also means that they can negotiate ruthlessly and drive prices down to maximize profit for the people of Ontario. I don't know if they will do that, but it sure helps.
Except they're maximizing profits for LCBO, while the benefits to the "people of Ontario" are arguable. For that money to truly benefit Ontarians, it requires a certain level of faith in the provincial governments to be good shepherds with said funds.
The BC Liquor stores are not well run. In my experience, the service is slow, the people are not knowledgeable, and you will often have a huge lineup of people waiting at the only cashier that is open. The employees have 0 incentive to change this because they are protected by a powerful union.
On top of this, as mentioned in other posts, we have some of the most expensive alcohol in the world. I have travelled to several countries and have yet to find a place that has more expensive alcohol than BC.
I used to work beside a major liquor importer and after speaking with some of their employees, the general consensus in the industry is that the only people that benefit from this are the union employees that work at the government liquor stores and distribution centres. For everyone else: restaurants, consumers, independent store owners, etc. it is a negative.
Alcohol in BC is expensive because it is heavily taxed at every step, from production to distribution. BCL is not the cause of that problem. (As a cursory glance at the prices in non-BCL stores will confirm.)
Agreed. The excuse that you will hear over and over again whenever anyone mentions the obvious inefficiencies is the moralistic bullshit where "We shouldn't make it cheap and easy for people to buy poison."
I owe unions for many great things like weekends, safe working conditions, etc. They worked to codify these things into law. Once these things were accomplished, they slowly turned into impediments to competition. Private businesses whose unions went too far were driven out of business or hurt by companies whose unions cooperated with management (GM vs. Toyota). It's funny how the government monopolies (education, transportation, etc) are the most unionized industries left. The unions don't have to care about their customers, so they don't. Toyota has one of the most powerful unions on the planet (Japanese laws after WW2 made sure of that), and yet they don't squeeze out benefits at the expense of customers every chance they get.
Ontario does too. You can complain that the prices are a little high, but the LCBO stores I've been to have always been much cleaner and the staff more attentive, knowledgable, and personable than any privately owned store over the border in New York.
How often do you talk to the staff at your liquor store?
The convenience of buying at a corner store at a convenient time outweighs any of those things in my opinion(US, Quebec, some locations in Ont).
With the dollar going back up it'll be better to simply cross the border to buy alcohol and gas again, instead of paying the ridiculous markup.(for context, a 24 of 355ml cans of 'budget' beer is nearly $50 CAD).
Sounds like we treat alcohol differently. I don't drink to get drunk. If I want to try a new whisky or wine I'd like to be able to get some feedback on it, not an eye roll from a college-aged kid whose only insight is saying, "This one's probably better because it costs more".
LCBO employees will not be knowledgable with pot. Ever try to have a conversation about wine with an employee they are not hired with that knowledge background.
The prices are very high compared to other areas that have freer access. Everything has a floor price that doesn't allow companies to sell for less than that amount.
Compared to who? You have no frame of reference, because they have no competition. They could do a terrible job, and it wouldn't matter. They're a monopoly. They can do it as good or bad as they want, and you'll still go in and buy it.
Lifelong Ontarian. I always thought our logic of having a provincially run liquor store was limited in practice. Like, why aren't LCBO stores open 24 hours? Generally, most are open from 10 am to 9 pm. Making them 24 hours could nearly double their workforce.
I've been watching closely the way government will carry this out, and its unfortunate they aren't choosing to franchise dispensary permits out to small business. But I suppose Ontario's government would botch that, too. Hell, they're attempting to roll out the opportunity to purchase beer and wine (woo!) at grocery stores — but so far, only the franchise chains are able.
Finally, Liquor in Ontario is dumb expensive. I expect them to milk the price of marijuana for all its worth when this finally comes out.
I don't know about Ontario, but in Norway the reason for having limited opening hours (shorter than the ones you gave), and restricting the number of outlets, and pricing things high is that the government monopoly on these products is not there to maximise sales, but to minimise them. They're only open in the first place because prohibition didn't work and drove sales under ground.
So they provide a compromise - limited outlets, restrictions on opening hours etc. - that stave off attempts open up for wider sales and that is "good enough" to prevent most (but not all) black market sale of alcohol.
I believe that is the motivation for most alcohol related government monopolies.
Toronto is currently full of dispensaries on every corner. Some are open late and you're always close to one, independent local businesses with people in the community making money and spending it locally.
It will be sad to see a government monopoly turn weed distribution into the LCBO style. Expect prices to go up to $15-20g, cut down the number of locations and closes at 9pm.
At some point we have to compromise - a lot of people want drugs like marijuana illegal because they DON'T want dispensaries on every corner, open at all hours of the night, selling cheap drugs.
Maybe a good starting compromise is, ok, marijuana will be legal and people won't get arrested anymmore, but it will only be sold at a limited number of places for a limited amount of time, for an amount that will keep it from being too prevalent.
Sometimes they release this information to scare and control the population.
This is talking about the hell angels getting a medical supply and selling it on the black market. Not the same as running a store and none of this changes by having the lcbo run stores the supplier are licensed by government of Canada.
If anyone is interested, there is an interesting documentary about the LCBO. Developed by homebrewers, so it's not completely impartial but also quite fair. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn555TyJJw0
Giving government absolute control over distribution of a non-essential product/service is probably not the best idea, but at least it's better than having that product/service be completely illegal. Ideally they should allow private businesses to sell under very strict guidelines.
As an Ontarian and having previously lived in a country where pretty much anyone can sell alcohol till very late I passionately support LCBO and - as a voter - will support the proposed provincial government controlled marijuana distribution. No, it does not completely prevent alcohol in the hands of minors, late night drinking binges, deaths from methylene, but reduces these cases greatly for sure.
As an Ontarian and having previously lived in a country where pretty much anyone can sell alcohol till very late i find your comment odd.
I lived in the states for several years and you can get liquor at grocery stores, they had private stores which were like 4 times the size and selection of any LCBO.
What i do recall seeing is Toronto Liquor being sold in Connecticut for a full 50% less (bottled in Toronto)..
I dont recall seeing any "problems", in fact it seems Ontario and Connecticut have similiar death rates and Canada is among the worlds highest despite ourarchaic liquor laws from the 1920's which are almost soviet era (wait in line for a ticket, then wait in line for your item).
Perhaps you have a reason why Canada's death rate from impaired driving is actually higher then the US?
PS. I dont even drink, but find it odd the government is in this business and gouges their customers. if it is "bad" for you, why sell it? oh.. thats right.. to stop the bootleggers and fill hte government revenue?
There is a preexisting efficient network of high quality marijuana distribution in Ontario (at least here in Toronto). Even if the province does as well with marijuana as they do with booze (the LCBO is at least a pleasant retailer, aside from the rules about minors touching merchandise during shopping), the black market will be far more attractive to the mid and low shelf market.
It is considerably easier to grow and cure marijuana than it is to ferment commercially viable quantities of an attractive alcoholic drink.
The ideal legal weed situation is a legitimate version of the black market arrangement, which hasn't been a considerable health problem in any way that could be attributed to poor quality product. Pretending otherwise is just a typical legal trick pulled by established agribusiness/venture firms. Frankly it's hilarious at a time when the province is finally reintroducing private alcohol retailers.
I live on the border of New York and Ontario/Quebec and I can't see how this won't spur legalization here. The border is already incredibly porous and the smuggling routes already exist. This will just make it even easier.
Smuggling a case of beer across will result in you losing the beer. Smuggling marijuana will result in a felony and never being allowed to cross the border again.
It doesn't make sense to illegally transport marijuana across the border just so you can buy it legally from a store.
I'm saying it already happens. I grew up with people who literally smuggle weed for a living across the northern border. There are some areas where there is no actual official border[0] where smuggling is happening now. It was already comparatively easier to access in Canada then smuggle to the US, but when it's legal in Canada it will just help fuel the supply being brought over.
Personally I wouldn't try smuggling from across, taking beer and smokes across without declaration is significantly less of a risc than taking banned substances. I say this as a Canadian a few minutes from the Washington border.
The LCBO is a good employer for stupid people. Those salaries go right back into the economy. These unionized jobs also come with a great pension providing retirement security. I am quite happy with this.
The government privatizing things such as Ontario Hydro has been a huge disaster. At least they are not stupid enough to give this up.
'Stupid People'? Come on, that's a real asshole thing to say. You can't be to bright yourself if you think a person is stupid for working an honest job.
I don't mind it being LCBOish but pot can come in a lot of forms and I'm not sure the government will be up to providing it in oils, candies, cookies, vape juices, baked goods all around, butter, tea, cola, etc. This is something a small shop would make and sell easily. A lot of people enjoy smoke free pot and I am not certain they will handle that.
Privating hydro is different because it is still a monopoly. The little guy cannot setup a power company. But this is a new industry with small business being wiped out. Imagine we all had to wait in line for our block of cheese once a week.
The one thing missing from most comments I see here is price parity and equality. I've lived in Ontario (government liquor stores) and now live in Alberta (private liquor stores).
The big perk about Ontario liquor is that it's the same price no matter what store you walk into. Doesn't matter if you are in a small town of 1000 people with one liquor store or in Toronto with 500 stores.
In Alberta, if you are in a small town and your only option is Joe's Liquor Store, you're going to pay $55 for 24 bottles of Canadian that go for $20 less at the Safeway liquor store in a city. And in actuality, you can pay $55 for that case in the middle of Calgary if it's a mom and pop shop.
I suspect the same will be true for marijuana. Same prices regardless of what LCBO you walk into.
>I suspect the same will be true for marijuana. Same prices regardless of what LCBO you walk into.
You'd be surprised how self regulating the market is for marijuana though. People always want to make the alcohol analogy, but it's a totally different thing. Marijuana has a long tradition of home cultivation and use, as well as a thriving well established black market which will always pick up the slack. Prices tend to be very stable across the board in California at least. Without any government run outlets the price is the same across the entire state.
Here's the government run liquor store in Moosonee, Ontario [0] Moosonee is a town of 2000 people in northern Ontario. It is an 8 hour train ride away from Timmins Ontario (train or plane access only). Timmins is an 8 hour drive away from Toronto. I can't imagine a situation where the marijuana prices in this town would be comparable to downtown Toronto given the amount of labour needed to transport the marijuana to this remote location. And I'm not really speculating, we see this all the time. Citizens of our northern territories (YK, NWT, NT) are used to paying $25/L of milk and so on.
Sure this is a bit of hyperbole, but it points to one of the perks of government run/controlled distribution, namely those in the cities can help to subsidize the price for those in smaller towns across Ontario. Is this government controlled model the best? Probably not but let's remember this is unchartered territory. We can look to the individual states for learnings (ie. Colorado, Washington) but Ontario is 1 million km^2 and California is half that with a much greater population density. They are different in many ways.
This entire thread is a great example of how many if not most Canadians will passionately defend any old goofy policy, as long as it's different from how the Americans do it.
I've lived in a variety of American states as well as Ontario and I really can't believe what I'm reading - anyone defending the selection, knowledge of the staff, price, hours, pretty much anything relating to the LCBO vs. a privatized but regulated market is a few Timbits short of a Snack Pack. I suspect the very same will be true with The Weed Store once it rolls out - way better than prohibition, but much worse than Colorado or Oregon or Washington.
If it counts for anything I'm a Canadian and I vehemently oppose any policy like this.
The selection and knowledge of my dispensary in Vancouver in invaluable. They even take notes based on experiences of every strain I buy from them so that they can tailor their suggestions to me based on my history and the composition of the strain. I can't just smoke anything, my body only responds well to certain strains, and I trust nobody less than some ignorant, unionized liquor store staff to personalize my experience based on my needs.
The quote by Ms. Roach saying " … The person who smokes high-end cannabis, they don't want shwaggy, mass-produced stuff. They don't want Labatt Blue, they want craft." is completely true.
The LCBO is a business, government run liquor stores and distribution is a policy.
LCBO is a well run organization, government run liquor stores is an absurd policy in my mind. Painting both with the same brush is disingenuous.
A step in the right direction, I guess. Ontario can be surprisingly conservative about these things... they only recently started allowing alcohol to be sold in grocery stores. Seems the initial round of legislation will legalize it, but with heavy restrictions.
I really wish they'd step back and let the free market handle it, instead of once again heavily restricting distribution and sales to another bloated government monopoly.
Plus, the number of stores at launch is way too low - people will simply continue to purchase higher quality weed for less money from private sellers. It's a bad move all around.
> instead of once again heavily restricting distribution and sales to another bloated government monopoly.
Yes, yes, yes. Why can't they regulate it like cigarettes?
The argument about keeping it out of the hands of minors is bullshit. It's already illegal to sell tobacco products to people under age in Ontario.
LCBO and the Beer Store are stupid ideas from a bygone era that need to end. Legal monopolies of provincial owned entities should not be permitted.
I'm not saying full privatization is the right answer, because I don't believe the free market solution is always best, but at least allow private competition to a crown corp. LCBO has no motivation to innovate because there is little/no competition.
The government of Ontario makes a net profit of ~$2B/year off the LCBO and employs about ~7000 people at wages way above what you'd probably see in a privatized market. There's not too much grumbling from consumers, so nobody in government really wants to rock the boat.
Having experienced both, as a consumer I prefer the Alberta model with privatized retailers because there are far more stores and the hours are better. Actually, I found this old Fraser Institute report on the privatization of liquor in Alberta to be rather interesting. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Privatiz...
It's not a big deal for me personally, but there's also more room for unique shops. For example, one of the markets nearby does a lot of specialty whiskey imports.
Here's the thing, though. If you refer to an "initial round" of legislation, you're probably assuming another round isn't far away.
You have a real-life experiment with which to compare, in the LCBO, to see that progress will extremely slow, and limited. How long did it take to get beer into grocery stores (and even then with some restrictions)? That's beer. How long will it take with weed?
Its interesting that Ontario just introduced the privatization of booze and then turn around and create a monopoly on pot. Well, either way i'm pretty happy that good normal people will no longer be at risk of criminal offenses.
The Lib Dems do [1] have a reasonably enlightened drug policy. Labour is lagging, but I think there's hope of that changing - Corbyn has in the past sponsored a bill for decriminalisation of weed (in 2000) and stated he wanted to decriminalise medicinal use (in 2016).But Labour spans very social liberal and quite socially conservative groups so can't afford to go as far as the Lib Dems on that subject.
Wait a minute. After telling us that marijuana is bad of use now government wants to get into that business ? This in my opinion is worse sort of corruption.
The people who run marijuana businesses should be marijuana enthusiasts who care about themselves and their customers not some government pen pusher.
Soon they will treat it as Tobacco and will tax it to death and not to mention kill all innovation in this space.
Screw duty free, the airline should offer cannabis cookies as a snack option. What airline wouldn't like a plane full of chilled out passengers, who are contented to watch reruns of old Disney movies? And I'll take an extra pizza pocket, plz & thx.
1. Provincial government is cash poor. The LCBO is a huge source of cash, what government would give up another source? This isn't taxes, this is profit. "Isn't this just another tax?" One might ask, but no it's not. The reason is that Ontario has fewer alcohol distribution centres than a free market would provide. Most people just do a bigger alcohol run and drive / walk / drive further than their American counterparts. There's queuing occasionally, but usually only before long weekends or holidays.
2. The current dispensaries are run by criminals. The optics of giving a windfall to law breakers aren't great. The police keep shutting them down, and they keep popping up. I'm not bashing them, I think cannabis should have been legalized a long time ago and I think it's unconscionable that we have Canadians addicted to heroin because they were given opioids instead of pot, because pot requires a huge hassle to get approved, and I think dispensaries alleviate that stress, but some operations are huuuuge and most certainly are funnelling money into real criminal organizations.
3. The union at the LCBO is huge and powerful. The jobs, even seasonal ones, pay well and Ontarians aren't outraged because the staff is generally competent and friendly and the stores are clean.
4. Controls over potency are a real problem in the current dispensaries and because of the sketchiness of the current people involved and their distribution networks, the government would have to get involved auditing anyway.
I hope that they keep the stores open every day of the week. Many Canadians use pot outside the medical system, but for medical reasons and fast access will mean the black market will finally collapse. I also hope there will be a system for legitimizing certain strains that gain popularity in the US, like the LCBO does for wine.